Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.217.206.152

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

71.217.206.152



 * Code letter: C.
 * Supporting evidence: 1, 2, 3, 4 (this happened at least 6 total times), 5 (happened 6 times), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
 * Code letter: C.
 * Supporting evidence: 1, 2, 3, 4 (this happened at least 6 total times), 5 (happened 6 times), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
 * Code letter: C.
 * Supporting evidence: 1, 2, 3, 4 (this happened at least 6 total times), 5 (happened 6 times), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

I'll try to make this as short as possible. User:71.217.206.152 came to the Kent Hovind article and tagged the article with an erroneous NPOV tag and removed the booking photo (diff's 1 & 2) from the article. The editor in question reinserted the tag and removed the photo 6 more times (diff's 3 & 4 shown). This was reverted each time. On the image page, he tagged the article as a copy vio a total of 6 times (diff 5 shown). Editor was blocked at 14:13 and the 2nd account made the 1st edit at 14:15 which was to reinsert the copy vio on the image page (diff 6). 2nd account was blocked by user:Arthur_Rubin for abusing sock puppet accounts. 2nd account was unblocked and created his version of an "NPOV" article (diff 8) which is actually a whitewash of all the well-sourced controversy surrounding the article's subject. The 3rd account appears and inserts the 2nd accounts version of the article (diff 9). After bot reverts to the article, the 4th account shows up and reverts back to the previous account's version of article (diff 10). Finally, the 5th account comes in and reverts to the version of the previous 2 accounts (diff 11). This is a pretty obvious case of socking and has led to the protection of what was once a fairly stable article with minimal vandalism, considering it's subject and related matters. The reason I came here was because when I ran the whois function, the two IP address give different locations (Washington and Colorado). The evidence points towards a pattern of abuse and the editor in question seems bent on continual vandalism and will more than likely resume his rampage once the semiprotection is removed. A long block would be in order so that hopefully this editor finds other ways to pass the time. Baegis (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * for the time being. My WHOIS tool shows both IPs in the same city, and the evidence here is pretty obvious without a technical IP check. If blocking these users and IP addresses does not help, file another report. Thatcher 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I ask that you do do this, to prove my innocence here, this is my only account and 71.217.206.152 is my IP which was used before registering this account, I have no clue what these other accounts are. And I have been accused of being a sockpuppet.--L33t-Geek (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also to me the appear to be from diffrent states, how are you getting the same city? And what city do you get, still wouldn't mean much if you get some huge city like New York City.--L33t-Geek (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are in Spokane, WA. 71.217.206.152 is Qwest which has its corporate headquarters in Colorado but the name of that server is 71-217-206-152.spkn.qwest.net. Self-checks are usually declined because the target (if clever enough) could have arranged matters to appear as different editors, giving a false negative response. Thatcher 23:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Suspected sock puppets/71.217.206.152. FT2 (Talk 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''